![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() That being said, the rendering of people, events, movements, and place have afforded me a greater understanding and appreciation of our difficult land and why we are so fortunate to live in Texas and shape its built environment. I’m old enough to remember when this view may have been more broadly palatable, but the overall effect is one of anachronism. The author seems self-aware, but powers through it anyway. Generally, but not always might have been acceptable in 1968, but now seems to be just simply prejudiced. In mining the facts and illustrating the myth, the author incorporates a lexicon that is generally, but not always, ethnically prejudiced. His writing is exquisitely dramatic and feels as though history could have been inspired by the arc of his writing, not the other way around.Īnd that is where the critique begins. Fehrenbach wrote Lone Star as if he were there all along the way, from the arrival of primeval Amerinds to his 2000 supplement to the original 1968 text. In examining the stature of Lone Star among historians, it is clear that contemporaries rate the work as iconic yet flawed - dated by its stylistic approach and compromised by embellishments acknowledged by the author. Pages usually don’t matter, unless there are a lot of them, and 725 rates this sweeping tome as a long hike on anyone’s literary journey. Fehrenbach’s Lone Star, A History of Texas and the Texans. In an effort to better understand our place and its stories, I’ve read T. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |